ML19254F218
| ML19254F218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1979 |
| From: | Poirier M SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID, TEXAS, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911070382 | |
| Download: ML19254F218 (24) | |
Text
- g lI
- NRC PUBLIC DOCUMER WM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h
gib[,p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
==
i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARI (
In the Matter of:
)
- N *
/
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY,
)
NRC DOCKET NOS. 50 ird THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, THE CITY
)
50-49 OF AUSTIN, and CENTRAL POWER AND
)
LIGHT COMPANY
)
(South Texas Project, Units
)
1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,)
NRC DOCKET NOS. 50-445A ET AL.
)
$0-446A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND MOTION FOR MODIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD OF THE CITY OF BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS The Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas
(" City"), pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S2.730, hereby responds
'n the Motion for Protective Order filed with the Commission on October 16 by Central and South West Corporation, Central and South West Services, Inc., Central Power & Light Company
("CP&L"), West Texas Utilities Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Southwestern Electric Power Company (collectively the "C&SW Companies").
The City also submits a proposed Protective Order that it believes would adequately protect the legitimate interests of the C&SW Companies in maintaining confidentiality without unduly burdening the City; and requests the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to issue a modified protective order in this form, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S2.740 'c).
The City does not oppose the categories of docu-ments described in the C&Si Companies' proposed order, but objects to some of the procedures and restrictions set forth in the CSW Companies' proposed order.
l9"2 094 7911070 b (T)
. BACKGROUND The City is compelled to restate the background of this issue in order to avoid any inferences that might mistakenly be drawn from the C& SW Companies ' statement of facts.
On January 3, 19~1, the City requested CP&L to respond to interrogatories and produce documents in its own behalf and for all the C&SW Companies.
On February 28, 1979 CP&L filed a motion for a protective order requesting a) that it not be required to respond for the other C&SW companies, and b) that certain categories of documents be designated confidential and that access to them be restricted.
The City responded to this Motion on March 15, 1979, and also tiled, in the alternative, requests for issuance of third party subpoenas duces tecum to the other C&SW Companies.
At the prehearing conference on March 20, 1979, counsel for the C&SW Companies agreed to produce informally the requested documents, and the Board denied the City's request for issuance of the third party subpoenas.
No ruling was made on the request for a protective order; the City considers that the Board denied the request for protective order at this time. 1/
1/
A similar situation occurred in this proceeding regarding a motion for protective order of Gulf States Utilities. Certain aspects of the order - payment for costs of locating documents, and the scope of the privilege on settlements negotiations, for example - were thoroughly argued at the conference, and ruled on by the Board.
No explicit ruling was made on the confidentiality aspect of the requested protective order.
In a later telephone conference on June 19, 1979, Chairman Miller indicated that that portion of the motion was denied.- See the Order issued by this Board on June 25, 1979, at p.
2.
I2 2 095
. Between March 20, 1979 and October 16, 1979 the C&SW Companies did not renew their request for a protective order before this Board.
Counsel for the City and for the CSW com-panies discussed a possible protective cider in May and June, and again at the end of August saa in September.
In the interim, the City received some, but not all, of the CP&L documents it requested, and has provisionally separated and marked as confidential the documents that were indicated by CP&L personnel in Corpus Christi to be confiden-tial at the time of the document inspection in February and March, 1979.
However, some documents that might be confiden-tial under the terms of the C&SW Companies proposed order were not indicated in February and March to be confidential.
Likewise, Southwestern Electric Power Company ("ENEPCO")
documents relating to industrial sales and fuel contracts have been temporarily separated, as requested by SWEPCO per-sonnel at the time of the document inspection in Shreveport, Louisiana in May, 1979.
Documents from Central and South West Corporation and Central and South West Services, Inc.
were inspected and copies requested in June, 1979, but copies have nc* been delivered to counsel for the City; in a letter of Augt st 14, 1979, counsel for C&SW Companies stated this was because no protective order had been entered.
Prior to the scheduled deposition of some CPsL of ficers, at the beginning of October, 1979, counsel for CP&L declined to produce documents updating earlier CP&L production until a protective order was entered; in order to obtain even belated access to these documents at the time of the depositions, 12 2 096
. counsel for the City agreed temporarily to a more restrictive protective order pending resolution of the matter.
TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER The CSSW Companies have proposed a protective order that is broader than necessary to protect their legitimate interest in '.naintaining confidentiality; this proposed order would place a heevy burden on the City's resources, par-ticularly by requiring City to rely solely on independant consultants to analyze confidential documents.
The City proposes a modified protective order (similar to one rejected by counsel for the C&SW Companies) that itself is more accomodating of C&SW Companies interests than the relevant precedent requires.
See Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1),
ALAB 327, 3 N.R.C.,408, 415-18 (1976); 10 C.R.F. 52.790(b).
The basic argument put forth by C&SW in favor of its form of protective order seems to be tha t i; is modelled on an agreement by the City and Houston Lighting & Power Company
("HL&P").
That fact is irrelevant.
The Board 's duty is to balance the need for a full and unimpaired discovery against whatever legitimate need for protection of confidentiality has been shown.
The City contests the C&SW Companies ' proposed order because it is unduly restrictive and burdensome, and because the City believes the documents and information involved, particularly as to CP&L, are central to its case and are worth the ef fort of bringing the matter before this Board.
The fact that City reached a different earlier j udgment as to documents and inf3rmation provided by HL&P
!?"2 097
5-should have no bearing on the Board's consideration of the two proposed orders here; indeed it is in part the difficulties imposed by the City's compliance with that earlier order which causes us to resist that form of order here.
The specific points of difference between the two protective orders are presented below.
The City does not dispute the three categories propcsed by C&SW Companies as confidential; but does disagree with the proposed restrictions and responsibilities that the CS&W Companies seek to attach with respect to docu-ments in these categories.
1.
Responsibility for Designating and Marking Confidential Documents The City's propcsed order includes the following new language at the beginning of paragraph 1:
1.
The Movants shall indicate at the time of pro-duction which documents and information they consider to be within the categories defined by this Order as con-fidential.
Such documents and information reviewed by or delivered to PUB af ter the date of this agreement shall be stamped by the Movant or Movants with the legend
" Confidential Treatment Claimed by the Central and South West Companies Pursuant to an Order of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A, 50-499A, issued October __, 1979."
Under the C&SW Companies' proposed protective order the onus would be on the City to determine which specific documents matched the categories described in the proposed order.
This is unacceptable.
The C&SW Companies must take the responsibility in the first instance of indicating which documents they believe are covered by the order.1/ The City cannot be expected to interpret 1/ Ve note enat HL& P d id in fact endertake that burten.
12 2 098
. document categories supplied by the C&SW companies to the satisfaction of C&SW.
If the C&SW companies seek the special protection of a protective order, they should undertake the effort of deciding which specific documents need to be protected Furthermore, documents designated as confidential should be clearly marked.
This provides an easy record of what has been designated as confidential.
It also provides protection of the confidential nature in case a document should stray from its proper pla-The C&SW Companies should be required to physically mark the documents they choose to designate as confidential; in this way both they and the City (and any other parties who inspect the document production) will have a clear record of what has been designated.
2.
Access of City's House Counsel to Confidential Documents and Information The City's proposed order contains the following added language in paragraph 1 (a):
" Confidential documents information therein shall not be disclosed to any person other than (a) counsel for in parties to this proceeding (including PUB in-hcuse counsel) and including necessary secretarial, peralegal and clerical personnel assisting such counsel This language would provide the attorney for the Public Utilities Board access to confidential information.
During the spring of 1979 the Public Utilities Board hired Mr. Michael Simmons as in-house counsel.
Unless the language in the City's proposed order is incorporated Mr. Simmons will not be able te participate fully in all aspects of this case, for he will not have access to all the facts.
He will not be able to take part in shaping overall legal strategy, or in Brownsville's l'"2 099
- dealings with CP&L, despite the fact that Mr. Simmons' appearance has oeen entered in Central Power & Light, et al.,
FERC Docket No.
ER79-8, and he has played a role in current nego-tiations with CP&L.
Moreover, unless this language is incor-porated, the. City will be forced to rely more extensively on outside counsel from San Antonio, Texas and Washington, D.C.
and the City will incur added expense; this is so especially where local matters in the vicinity of Brownsville, for example, depositions, require a lawyer versed in all the facts, but where Mr. Simmons, were he available, could do the job and allow the City to avoid bringing down yet another attorney from San Antonio or Washington.
3.
Access to Confidential Documents by City Employees The City's proposed protective order adds the following language to paragraph (1) (b) of the C&SW Companies ' proposed order.
"(b) independent consultants and technical experts (including PUB personnel) and their staf f who are engaged directly in this or related letigation[. ]
The City does not agree that its personnel should be prevented from reviewing confidential documents or infor-mation.
They provide an expertise that is an integral part of the City's preparation for this case.
The City can-not afford to rely entirely on outside consultants who, under the terms of the proposed order, would have access to the information.
Although the City has retained experts to prepare testimony in this proceeding, it is relying very heavily on its cwn staf f rather than independent consultants for analysis of information and i2 2 100 for general advice on positions taken in this and related proceedings.
In particular, Mr. Robert E.
Round tree, PUB 's General Manager, and Mr. Larry Gawlik, are fully involved in all aspects of this and related litigation.
The City simply cannot afford to replace all the effort of its personnel on these cases by work done by outside consultants.
Under paragraph 2 of the City's proposed protective order Brownsville personnel would agree not to reveal confidential documents or information to anyone other than a person designated in paragraph 1, and to utilize the confidential documents and information solely for the purposes of this and related proceedings.
These restrictions on the use and dissemination of confidential documents and information will adequately protect the interests of the C&SW Companies.
4.
Use in Related Proceedings City's proposed protective order adds to paragraph 2 (c) of the C&SW Companies' proposed order as follows:
"2.
Confidential documen*s and information contained therein shall not be made available to any person designated in 1(b) unless they shall have first read this order and shall have agreed in writing (c) to utilize such confidential documents and information solely for the purposes of this and related proceedings."
It also makes the following related changes in paragraph 1:
'1.
Confidential documents and information therein shall not be discussed to any person other than (b) independent consultants and technical experts (including PUB personnel) and their staff who are engaged directly in this or related litigation; (c) qualified court reporters in-volved in reporting matters in this or related litigation This proceeding is nat occuring in isolation, but in the i? 2 101
-.- context of a whole series of related litigation.
It is in the interest of all parties to minimize the amount of time and effort spent on duplicative discovery.
(Indeed, at the beginning of this proceeding the parties agreed to give each other access to documents produced in the related SEC and District Court cases; the related proceeding have now spread to the FERC as well.
Moreover, it is common sense to expect the parties to carry over the facts they learn in the pro-ceeding and to apply them to other related proceedings.
The C&SW Companies' proposed order, however, would restrict use of confidential documents to this one pro-ceeding.
This sort of "balkanization" is unnecessary to pro-tect any legitimate interest in confidentiality.
The terms of the protective order defining the treatment to be provided to confidential documents and information are equally appli-cable to related proceedings.
Without the modifications pro-posed by City, it might be necessary to seek a modification of this order from this Board, or even to go through the discovery process again, before documents could be used even in a restricted way in a related proceeding.
5.
Reserving Right to Request Specific Showing The City's proposed order adds the following language to the end of paragraph 3:
"Upon the request of any party or by the Board upon its own motion, the Movants snall make an aporopriate show ng of confidentiality for specific Informa aon or documents as to which eney have claimed confidentiality.
If the 19o2 102
. Board finds that the Movants have failed to make such a showing, such information or documents shall not be treated as confidential under the terms of this Order."
The purpose of this language is to make clear that the City has not waived its right to require the C&SW Companies to make the customary showing as to specific documents claimed to be confidential.
(Note that this is different f rom the obligation to indicate in the first instance which documents the C&SW Companies consider to be confidential.)
The provisions of the City's proposed order establish cate-gories of documents that are arguably confidential in nature (or at least as to which C&SW vigorously makes a claim of confidentiality).
In order to ease the burden on this Board and on C&SW, we have accepted these categories for initial claim purposes, without the usual requirement of a documment by document showing of confidentiality.
Nevertheless, there may well be documents within these categories that are not properly treated as confidential, for one reason or another; as to these documents, the specific showing of conf f. den-tiality, according to the Wolf Creek standard, would be made upon request.
The City, assuming good faith on C&SW's part, does not expect at this time that this showing will be necessary for a significant number of documents.
6.
Treatment Upon Final Termination The City's proposed protective order makes two substan-tive changes in the first sentence of paragraph 3 of the C&SW Companies' proposed order, as follows:
8.
Upon final termination of this proceeding and all related proceedings, each person that is sub ect to this J
1?o2 103
... order shall assemble and return to counsel for Movants all ecnfidential document: 2nd informatier ocntained thereir including all documents and information that are confidential as described in (a), (b), or (c) except that " current," " future" and "within the past five years" shall be determined for this purpose with reference to the date of termination of all related proceedings.
Such documents and information shall include all copies of such matter which may have been made but not including copies containing notes or other attorney's work product that may have been placed thereon by counsel for the receiving party.
First, as previcusly explained, the City should not be required to return confidential documents at the termination of this proceeding so long as related proceedings are still going forward.
Provided that the confidential documents con-tinue to be treated as such, there is no reason to return or destroy them.
The City is currently a party to several related proceedings in which information contained in these documents is highly likely to be relevant, e.g.,
Central Power & Light et al.,
FERC Docket No. EL79-8.
All of the related litigation ties in to the questions of the overall relationship of the City and CP&L and C&SW, and of the electric utilities in Texas generally.
The City cannot agree that a procedure which would require destruction of confiden-tial documents or information before the overall dispute has been satisfactorily resolved, would be rational or in anyone's best interest.
If that were to be required, it would then be necessary for the City to obtain duplicative discovery in each of the ever expanding series of related cases.
While it may well be that someone of the C&SW collection of attorneys has made a well timed investment in Xerox stock, we see no other interest to be served by such a procedure.
7p
s The second proposed change is that, for purposes of returning or destroying documents and information deemed to be confidential, the determination of confidentiality should be made as of the time of the end of the proceeding.
That is, documents are confidential because they contain current or recent information that might be of interest to competitors; the categories of confidential documents pro-posed by the C&SW Companies make this cleer.
After a few years, however, (assuming this proceding is litigated and appealed), much of what was once sensitive information will be totally without value to competitors.
The City should not be required to dismantle its files or destroy its notes on this case in order to protect documents or information that no longer need protection.
Only documents confidential at that time should be required to be returned or destroyed.
7.
Retroactivity f'
As the City understands it, the proposed order basically 6'..t%
w,3b
~.
~
would apply prospectively to all documents to be furnished
", g%...
for inspection by the C&SW Companies, including cooies of h,,.g '
. cd these documents provided to the City.
It will also apply to documents requested but not yet furnished from CP&L, SWEPCO,
'.;,' ?,
and C&SW, as well as to the updating of CP&L documents viewed by counsel for the City on October 1, 1979, and the infor-
'rt
)I' mation contained in the depositions of Messrs. Price and y'
Durham on October 1 and 2, 1979.
- ,3 The City understands the proposed order will not apply retroactively to documents already in its possession which the C&SW Companies have not heretofore requested be treated l'>o2 105
. as confidential.
In particular, non-confide.-tial documents from CP&L were received months ago and have been integrated into the City's files and incorporated into various memoranda and other documents. 1/
Some additional documents from the CP&L discovery may fall within the categories now described in the C&SW companies' proposed protective order to be confidential.
However, the City relied on the representations of CP&L per-sonnel then, and no compelling legal reason has been shown why the City should be put to the effort of a major search now when CP&L did not assert confidentiality at the time. 2/
CONCLUSION The Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas believes it has shown that the C&SW Companies' proposed order would produce unreasonable restrictions and wasteful duplication, without any showing of the usual tests for con-fidentiality.
The City believes its proposed order is very Jenerous to C&SW in providing protection without the burden on C&SW usually required.
For these reasons, and those shown 1/
On August 13, 1979 the City provided CP&L Counsel a list of documents reviewed and requested that were indicated at the time of discovery to be confidential.
By agreement, the order as it is entered will apply to these indicated docu-ments as well.
2/
CP&L did assert privilege as to certain of the documents produced at that time; other requested documents have not yet been copied, without any explanation as yet.
!'"2 106
_. above, the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas, respectfully requests that this Board:
1.
Deny the Motion of the C&SW companies to enter a Protective Order as they have submitted it; 2.
Enter the modified Protective Order attached to this Motion; 3.
Take such further action as may be deemed appropriate consistent with the above.
Respectfully submitted, f
QAC-Marc R.
Poirier Attorney for the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virg inia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 Cated:
October 24, 1979 1'"2 107
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY,
)
NRC DOCKET NOS. 50-498A THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, THE CITY
)
50-499A OF AUSTIN, and CENTRAL POWER AND
)
LIGHT COMPANY
)
(South Texas Project, Units Nos.
)
1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,)
)
50-446A (ComEnche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units Nos. 1 and 2)
)
PROTECTIVE ORDER On January 3, 1979, the Public Utilities Board of Brownsville, Texas
(" PUB") filed its Initial Interrogatories to and First Request for Production of Documents by Centr &l Power & Light Company
(" CPL").
In response, CPL filed Objections to and Motion for Protective Order alleging, inter alia, that certain matters inquired into by the PUB Interrogatories and certain documents requested by the PUB Request for Production relate to or contain information which is of a confidential or proprietary nature, the release or disclosure of which to third parties could 1?"2 108 seriously impair CP's respective relationships with existing or potential customers or jeopardize CPL's competitive position.
Further, this Board has directed CPL's affiliated companies to comply with reasonable discovery requests of PUB.
PUB, accordingly, has requested the production of documents by Central and South West Corporation, Central and South West Services, Inc., West Texas Utilities company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Southwestern Electric Power Company (collectively, with CPL, " the Movants").
The Movants have filed contemporaneously nerewith a Motion for Protective Order concerning the public disclosure of certain documents and information which the Movants have been requested to produce or disclose by PUB.
Some of the documents and information requested by PUB may relate to or contain informatien which is of a confidential or proprietary nature, the release or disclosure of which to third parties could seriously impair the Movants' respective relationships with existing or potential customers or jeopardize the Movants' competitive position.
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the following categories of documents 1/ and information may be confidential and shall be subject to the restrictions 1.
As used in this Protective Order the term " documents" shall have the same meaning as ascribed to it in PUB's Initial Interrogatories to and First Request for Production of Documents by CPL.
I?"2 109 contained in paragraphs one through eight following:
(a)
All documents and information referring or relating to or setting forth (i) current efforts or activities by any Movant to encourage any industrial concern to locate, expand or retain a plant or other facility in the service territory of any Movant, and (ii) the particular industrial concern's response to such efforts or activities; (b)
All documents and information referring or relating to or setting forth the rates or other terms and conditions which any Movant has offered to any industrial concern within the past 5 years, or under which any :fovant now supplies electric service to any industrial concern; (c)
All documents and information referring or relating to or setting forth the current or future terms and conditions of gas or other fuel supply to any Movant, including entitlements, ownership interests or any other form of control of or access to gas or other fuel.
1.
The Movants shall indicate at the time of production which documents and information they consider to be within the categories defined by this Order as confidential.
Such documents and information reviewad by or delivered to PUB after the date of this agreement shall be stamped by the Morant er Movants with the legend
" Confidential Treatment Claimed by the Central and South West Companies Pursuant to an Order of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in NRC Docket Mos. 50-498A, 50-499A issued October __, 1979."
]?ng
_ and shall not be disclosed to any person other than (a) counsel for parties to this proceeding (including PUB in-house counsel) and including necessary secretarial, paralegal and clerical personnel assisting such counsel;
- 03) independent consultants and technical experts (including PUB personnel) and their staff who are engaged directly in this or related litigation; (c) qualified court reporters involved in reporting matters in this or related litigation; and (d) the Commission, the Board, the presiding officer or Commission's Staff.
2.
Confidential documents and information contained therein shall not be made available to any person designated in 1(b) unless they shall have first read this order and shall have agreed, in writing (a) to be bound by the terms thereof, 03) not to reveal such ccnfidential document or information to anyone other than another person designated in paragraph 1, and (c) to utilize such confidential documents and information solely for the purposes of this and related proceedings.
3.
If the Commission or the Board orders that access to or dissemination of confidential documents and information contained therein as defined above shall be made to persons not included in paragraph 1 above, such matter shall be accessible to, or disseminated to, such persons based upon the conditions pertaining to, and the obligations arising from this order, and such persons shall be considered subject to it.
Upon the request of any party or by the 3 card upon its own g
motion, the Movants shall make an appropriate showing of confidentiality for specific information a documents as to which they have claimed confidentiality.
If the Board finds that the Movants have failed to make such a showing, such information or documents shall not be treated as confidential under the t'ermo of this order.
4.
Any portion of a transcript in connection with this proceeding containing any confidential documents or information contained therein shall be bound separately and filed under seal.
When any confidential documents or information contained therein are included in an authorized transcript of a deposition or exhibits thereto, arrangements shall be made with the court reporter taking the deposition to '. ind such confidential portions and separately label them
" (MOVANT) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION, SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER. "
Before a court reporter receives any such document or information, he or she shall have first read this Order and shall have agreed in writing to be bound by the terms thereof.
5.
Any confidential document or information defined above is to be treated as such within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. S 552 (b) (4) and 18 U.S.C.
S 1905, subject to a final ruling, after notice, by the Commission, Board, t.te presiding officer, or the Commission's Freedom of Information Act Officer to the contrary, or by acpeal of such a ruling, interlocutory or otherwise.
l'"2 ll2 6.
If confidential documents or information are disclosed to any person other than in the manner authorized by this Protective Order, the person responsible for the disclosure must immediately bring all pertinent facts relating to such disclosure to the attention of counsel for MOVANTS and the presiding officer and, without prejudice to other rights and remedies of MOVANTS, make every effort to pre'ent further disclosure by counsel or by the person to whom ':he document or information was communicated.
7.
Nothing in this Order shall affect the admissibility into e.vidence of confidentaial documents or information defined above, or abridge the right of any person to seek judicial review or to pursue other appropriate judicial action with respect to any ruling made by the Commission, its Freedom of Information Act Officer, the Board or the presiding officer concerning the issue of the status of confidential business information.
8.
Upon final termination of this and all related proceedings, each person who is subject to this order shall assemble and return to counsel for Movants all documents and information that are confidential as described in (a),
(b), or (c) except that " current", " future" and "within the past five years" shall be determined for this purpose with reference to the date of termination of all related proceedings.
Such documents and information shall include i? 2 113 all copies of such matter which may have been made, but not including copies containing notes or other attorney's work-product that may have been placed thereon by counsel for the receiving party.
All copies containing noted or other attorney's work-product shall be destroyed.
This paragraph shall not apply to the Commission, the Board, the presiding officer or the Commission's Staff, which shall retain such material pursuant to statutory requirements and for other record keeping purposes, but may destroy those additional copies in its possession which it regards as surplusage.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Cated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of I2 114
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY,
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A e t al.
)
and 50-499A
)
(South Texas Project, Unit Nos.
)
1 and 2)
)
)
)
)
In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,)
Docket Nos. 50-445A et al.
)
and 50-446A
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have caused a copy of the foregoing letter in the above-captioned proceeding to be served on the following be deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by hand-delivery this 24th day of October, 1979:
- Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Roy P.
Lessy, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Michael Blume, Esquire Panel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton,
D.
C.
20555 Nashington, D.
C.
20555 Jerome Saltzman, Chief
- Sheldon J.
Wolfe, Esquire Antitrust & Indemnity Group Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory LCommission Panel Washing ton,
D.
C.
20553 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Chase R.
Stephens, Chief Docketing & Service Section
- Michael L.
Glaser, Esquire Office of the Secretary 1150 17th Street, N.
W.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20036 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Joseph J.
Saunders, Esquire Antitrust Counsel Chief, PUblic Counsel &
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Legislative Section Washington, D.
C.
20555 Antitrust Division Department of Justice P.
O.
Box 14141 Washington, D.
C.
20444 l'>"2 115
.
- Joseph Gallo, Esquire Roff Hardy, Chairman and Robert H.
Loeffler, Esquire Chief Executive Officer David M.
Stahl, Esq.
Central Power & Light Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale P.
O.
Box 2121 1050 17th Street, N.
W.
Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Suite 701 Washington, D.
C.
20036 G.
K.
Spruce, General Manager City Public Service Board John D. Whitler, Esquire P.
O. Box 1771 Ronald Clark, Esquire San Antonio, Texas 78203 Antitrust Division Department of Justice Jon C. Wood, Esquire P.
O. Box 14141 W.
Roger Wilson, Esquire Washington, D.
C.
20444 Matthews, Nowlin, Macf arlane
& Barrett Joseph Knotts, Esquire 1500 Alamo National Building Nicholas S.
Reynolds, Esquire San Antonio, Texas 78205 Debevoise & Liberman 1200 17th Street, N. W.
Perry G.
Brittain, President Washington, D.
C.
20036 Texas Utilities Generating Co.
2001 Bryan Tower Douglas F.
John, Esquire Dallas, Texas 75201 Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld 1333 New Hampshire Ave.,
N.
W.
Joseph I.
Worsham, Esquire Suite 400 Merlyn D.
Sampels, Esquire Washington, D.
C.
20036 Spencer C.
Relyea, Esquire Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels R.
Gordon Gooch, Esquire 2001 Bryan Tower John P. Mathis, Esquire Suite 2500 Baker & Botts Dallas, Texas 75201 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
20006 R.
L.
Hancock, Director City of Austin Electric Utility Robert Lowenstein, Esquire Department J.
A.
Bouknight, Jr.,
Esquire P.
O.
Box 1088 William J.
Franklin, Esquire Austin, Texas 78767 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &
Axelrad Jerry L.
Harris, Esquire 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.
W.
Richard C.
Balo ug h, Esquire Washing ton,
D.
C.
20036 City of Austin P.
O.
Box 1038 Frederick H.
Ritts, Esquire Austin, Texas 78767 Law Of fices of Northcutt Ely Watergate 600 Building Dan H.
Dav id son Washing ton,
D.
C.
20037 City Manager City of Austin Wheatley & Wolleson P.
O.
Box.10 88 1112 Watergate Office Building Austin, Texas 78767 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D.
C.
20037 l'"2 116
. Don R.
Butler, Esquire Knoland J.
Plucknett Sneed, Vine, Wilkerson, Selman Executive Director
& Perry Committee on Power for the P.
O. Box 1409 Southwest, Inc.
Austin, Texas 78767 5541 Skelly Drive Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 Morgan Hunter, Esquire McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore Jay M.
Galt, Esquire 900 Congress Avenue Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hayes Austin, Texas 78701 219 Couch Drive Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Kevin B.
Pratt, Esquire Linda Aker, Esquire John E.
Mathews, Jr.,
Esquire P.
O.
Box 12548 Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, McNatt, Capital Station Gobelman & Cobb Austin, Texas 78767 1500 American Heritage Life Bldg.
Jacksonville, Florida 32202 E.
W.
Barnett, Esquire Charles G. Ghrash, Jr.,
Esquire Robert E.
Bathen J.
Gregory Copeland, Esquire R. W.
Beck & Associates Theodore F. Weiss, Jr.,
Esquire P.
O.
Box 6817 Baker & Botts Orlando, Florida 82803 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Somervell County Public Library P.
O.
Box 417 G. W.
Oprea, Jr.
Glen Rose, Texas 76403 Executive Vice President Houston Lighting & Pcuer Co.
Maynard Human, General Manager P.
O.
Box 1700 Western Farmers Electric Coop.
Houston, Texas 77001 P.
O.
Box 429 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 W.
S.
Robson, General Manager South Texas Electric Coop., Inc.
James E.
Monahan Route 6, Building 102 Executive Vice President Victoria Regional Airport and General Manager Victoria, Texas 77901 Brazos Electric Power Coop, Inc.
P.
O.
Box 6296 Michael I. Miller, Esquire Waco, Texas 76706 Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza Robert M.
Rader Chicago, Illinois 60603 Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.
7 Donald Clements, Esquire Washington, D.
C.
20006 Gulf States Utilities Co.
P.
O. Box 2951 W.
N. Woolsey, Esquire
'caumont, Texas 77074 Dyer and Redford 1030 Petroleum Tower Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 G4C' Marc R.
Po irie r Attorney for the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas I'"2 l17
_